4 ms·

>Nature isn't here for us, to make our lives easy. Or for that matter, hard. It just is. So, you're doling out (what you think is) knowledge, while objecting a

by vram22 3y ago

>Nature isn't here for us, to make our lives easy. Or for that matter, hard. It just is. So, you're doling out (what you think is) knowledge, while objecting a couple of levels above, to others doing the same? Did you invent Nature, that you are so sure of its purpose, or lack of purpose? If you think others are getting it wrong, give some objective proof, first, for why you think your statements are right, including any of them. Otherwise, you are as little credible as the people you dismissed out of hand.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
There is no objective proof and asking for it is disingenuous (unless you want to be clear about exactly what 'proof' comprises, that would be interesting). But you may not be aware that animals do eat other animals and it's not very nice, so start here https://www.google.com/search?q=lion+kill+hunt https://www.google.com/search?q=lion+kill+hunt if you are unfamiliar with the process.
- vram22 3y ago
  >There is no objective proof That was exactly my point above, though stated indirectly as a reductio ad absurdum style argument, somewhat sarcastically. IOW: Either one can make a rigorous argument, XOR one can make an informal one. Upthread, both you and your parent commenter made the latter kind. Ergo, their argument is as valid or invalid as yours. Yours is not more valid, although you may think so. QED. :)
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    "Dandelions are an incredible gift from nature" is not an argument. Other edible plants I listed, but that does not make them gifts, their edibility is incidental. You noticeably failed to address my point that nature's 'gift' includes an unpleasant process of killing and carnivory which I assume is pretty bloody unpleasant to the subjects of a hunt, given that they don't run towards the predators. > Upthread, both you and your parent commenter made the latter kind He made no such argument, just described nature in anthromorphic terms > Either one can make a rigorous argument, XOR one can make an informal one. That's a misunderstanding based on the assumption that there is a clear dividing point between formal and informal. If you had any background in mathematics you would know this is not true. There is no absolute definition of formality, it comes in degrees. > Ergo, their argument is as valid or invalid as yours Assuming you're claiming that we're both using informal arguments, this is mistaken as well because informal arguments can have degrees of evidential backing; some informal arguments are stronger than others. On the whole I get the impression you just want to score points here rather than learn anything or actually help anybody. Shall we not continue?
- vram22 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    Hey. Personal attacks aren't okay, no matter what the other person says.

by vram22 3y ago

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

There is no objective proof and asking for it is disingenuous (unless you want to be clear about exactly what 'proof' comprises, that would be interesting). But you may not be aware that animals do eat other animals and it's not very nice, so start here https://www.google.com/search?q=lion+kill+hunt https://www.google.com/search?q=lion+kill+hunt if you are unfamiliar with the process.

vram22 3y ago
>There is no objective proof That was exactly my point above, though stated indirectly as a reductio ad absurdum style argument, somewhat sarcastically. IOW: Either one can make a rigorous argument, XOR one can make an informal one. Upthread, both you and your parent commenter made the latter kind. Ergo, their argument is as valid or invalid as yours. Yours is not more valid, although you may think so. QED. :)
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  "Dandelions are an incredible gift from nature" is not an argument. Other edible plants I listed, but that does not make them gifts, their edibility is incidental. You noticeably failed to address my point that nature's 'gift' includes an unpleasant process of killing and carnivory which I assume is pretty bloody unpleasant to the subjects of a hunt, given that they don't run towards the predators. > Upthread, both you and your parent commenter made the latter kind He made no such argument, just described nature in anthromorphic terms > Either one can make a rigorous argument, XOR one can make an informal one. That's a misunderstanding based on the assumption that there is a clear dividing point between formal and informal. If you had any background in mathematics you would know this is not true. There is no absolute definition of formality, it comes in degrees. > Ergo, their argument is as valid or invalid as yours Assuming you're claiming that we're both using informal arguments, this is mistaken as well because informal arguments can have degrees of evidential backing; some informal arguments are stronger than others. On the whole I get the impression you just want to score points here rather than learn anything or actually help anybody. Shall we not continue?
vram22 3y ago
[flagged]
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Hey. Personal attacks aren't okay, no matter what the other person says.